Re-introduction of referents in Italian children's narratives

Abstract

In this study we investigate the re-introduction of referents in the Frog stories told by Italian children aged 4–10 (N = 100). We found that for every age group full nouns are the most frequent forms used for reference re-introduction. Null forms, such as clitic pronouns or person/number inflection on the verb, are the second most frequent forms. A detailed analysis of null forms shows that children of different ages exploit different properties of the verbal and non-verbal context which can make a referent predictable. Compared to preschoolers, elementary school children are more likely to use null forms when the semantic content of the verb, or the structure of the preceding text make referents inferrable. On the other hand, preschoolers tend to exploit the importance of a character in the story plot, or the visual availability of the referent in the non-verbal context, as properties that make an entity salient enough to prevent the speaker from using overt linguistic forms such as full nouns. Our study confirms results of previous research, showing that elementary school children are more competent than preschoolers in integrating the semantic content of the current utterance into the context generated by previous discourse.

The interplay of referential function and character primacy on referring expressions in children’s narratives

“…Additionally, the data revealed grade differences in the selectivity of identifiables for reintroduction. This finding is in accord with the studies of Orsolini et al (1996) and Vion and Colas (1999), who found a developmental change in sensitivity to function constraints for given information in this age range. It is, however, at odds with the results of Hickmann and Hendriks (1999), who found no age differences in the distributions of nominals vs. pronominals to reintroduce.…”

“…Regarding form-function matches for marking given information depending on whether or not it had been continuously in the focus of attention (maintenance vs. reintroduction), the results are generally in line with previous studies where children in this age range used fewer pronominals for reintroduction compared to maintenance and a minority of pronominals for reintroduction (Chen & Lei, 2013;Hickmann & Hendriks, 1999;Orsolini et al, 1996;Serratrice, 2007;Vion & Colas, 1999). Additionally, the data revealed grade differences in the selectivity of identifiables for reintroduction.…”

“…Results from the studies of Wigglesworth (1997), Orsolini et al (1996), and Bamberg (1987) provide some support for the hypothesis that, at least at some points in development, function constraints and character features may be in opposition, although there was no evidence that pronouns were strictly reserved for primary characters even in the youngest groups. Primacy seems to affect which referring expressions are used for character reference by young school-aged children, and the relative degree of animacy or agentivity of characters may contribute to this effect.…”

“…Orsolini et al (1996) considered character reintroduction by Italian children aged 4-10 years who generated multi-episode stories from a wordless picture book involving multiple characters, Frog, where are you? (FWAY; Mayer, 1969).…”

Maintaining and Reintroducing Referents in French: Cognitive Constraints and Development of Narrative Skills

“…Later, the choice of referential expressions starts to be governed by coherence constraints that apply to the discourse as a whole (its causal and temporal structure). At this point, referential expressions are less rigidly constrained (Hickmann, 1995;Hickmann, Kail, & Roland, 1995;Karmiloff-Smith, 1985;Orsolini, Rossi, & Pontecorvo, 1996;Ricard & Snow, 1990;Roth, Spekman, & Fye, 1995;Sauvaire & Vion, 1989;Vion & Colas, 1998;Vonk, Hustinx, & Simons, 1992). During adulthood, ambiguous references reappear and increase with age: new referents are often treated as givens when they have not yet been introduced, and anaphoric narration devices (whose role is to mark coreference) may not point unambiguously to a single antecedent (Light, Capps, Singh, & AlbertonOwens, 1994).…”